originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
because the subject of aliens isnt a criminal case?

No, because eyewitness testimony is insufficient alone to prove the existence of a crime.

It's called 'nabeas corpus'.

I believe the term you are looking for is corpus delicti; "habeas corpus" (which I assume you meant to type; I've never heard of
"nabeas corpus") has nothing to do with it.

Regardless of all of that, you're incorrect. Not only can eyewitness testimony establish that a crime has been committed, but it can secure a
conviction as well. Here's a post from a lawyer that almost reads like it could have been a specific reply to your post:

Joshua Sachs
Criminal Defense Attorney
Evanston, IL

Message
Posted on Oct 17, 2014

I think you are confusing two different concepts, the quantum of proof necessary to convict and the "corpus delecti" rule.

Can a person be convicted on testimony alone? Yes. The law in virtually every state is well settled that the testimony even of a single witness, if
believed, is sufficient to support a conviction. End of story.

The "corpus delecti" rule, which is the law in some jurisdictions but not necessarily in all, provides that a defendant's own confession cannot
support a conviction standing alone, but there must in addition be some independent evidence that a criminal act was committed. That additional
evidence, of course, can be witness testimony.

There is no requirement that there be some kind of physical evidence in order for the prosecution to obtain a conviction or to meet its burden of
proof beyond a reasonable doubt, That is, shall we say, an urban myth. Prisons are full of people convicted on the basis of witness testimony only. It
sounds as though you are seriously misunderstanding whatever is in your book . . . or that your book got it wrong.

Note that all of the other lawyers who posted on that thread are in agreement.

Good points.

The problem here is, Pseudoskeptics want to act like all eyewitness accounts are equally unreliable because they can't refute the strong and credible
eyewitness accounts when it comes to U.F.O.'s. There's some very credible and detailed accounts.

The fact is, eyewitness accounts are used in Science. All you have to do is read Newton's Principia and you will see how he used eyewitness accounts
to build his theory on comets or how we used eyewitness accounts with meteorites.

When you have multiple accounts saying the same or similar things and we can classify these accounts into knowns, unknowns and insufficient
information than that's very powerful stuff. We do this all the time in science and there's algorithms today we use that are equipped with machine
learning to classify things.

Years ago, there was a local robbery and there was like 5 or 6 eyewitnesses to the robbery. The Police found the criminal based on the strength of
these eyewitnesses who had the same or similar accounts down to the way his shoes looked.

If eyewitness accounts are so unreliable how can a composite sketch lead to a criminals arrest?

The point is there's very reliable eyewitnesses and they're witnesses that are not reliable. All witnesses aren't equally unreliable but again,
pseudoskeptics want to make it seem that way because they can't debate the evidence.

The only reason U.F.O.'s are unidentified is because people can't accept the best explanation for U.F.O.'s and that's extraterrestrial visitation. If
you accept that the best explanation for U.F.O.'s are extraterrestrials then many of these things are easily explained.

The only reason U.F.O.'s are unidentified is because people can't accept the best explanation for U.F.O.'s and that's extraterrestrial
visitation. If you accept that the best explanation for U.F.O.'s are extraterrestrials then many of these things are easily explained.

No, it only leads to further questions that may lead in the wrong direction. What if they are a naturally occurring phenomenon? Perhaps studying this
phenomenon might unlock the key to a Grand Unified Field Theory. Saying "it's aliens" and being content would stop the discovery process.

The only reason U.F.O.'s are unidentified is because people can't accept the best explanation for U.F.O.'s and that's extraterrestrial
visitation. If you accept that the best explanation for U.F.O.'s are extraterrestrials then many of these things are easily explained.

No, it only leads to further questions that may lead in the wrong direction. What if they are a naturally occurring phenomenon? Perhaps studying this
phenomenon might unlock the key to a Grand Unified Field Theory. Saying "it's aliens" and being content would stop the discovery process.

If they were a naturally occurring phenomenom they would already be identified. The same way we used eyewitness accounts with meteorites and
comets.

There's U.F.O. sightings and descriptions of similar objects flying in the sky that date back to Ancient Egypt. If these things are naturally occuring
where's all the non-prosaic explanations in peer reviewed journals?

originally posted by: MaximRecoil
Can a person be convicted on testimony alone? Yes. The law in virtually every state is well settled that the testimony even of a single witness, if
believed, is sufficient to support a conviction. End of story.

Well, that testimony would need to be consistent with the rest of the facts of the alleged crime. A person cannot be convicted ONLY on the testimony
of someone else.

For example, if I testified that I saw ATS member "MaximRecoil" kill someone, and there are no other facts whatsoever supporting that you killed
someone, there is no way that you would be convicted. There needs to be other facts supporting my testimony. I might be the one and only witness
to the crime, and that's perfectly acceptable, but my testimony should not be thought of as "evidence that you killed someone" unless other supporting
facts exist.

Why are you attributing that quotation to me? I didn't say it; Joshua Sachs, Criminal Defense Attorney, said it. By the way, the most common
convictions based on testimony alone are in the category of sexual crimes. No one said that every imaginable scenario can have a conviction based on
testimony alone. You can't get a murder conviction based on testimony alone if the person said to have been murdered is alive and well, because that
automatically negates the testimony. However, you could possibly get an attempted murder conviction based on testimony alone.

The reason I say that is because what if I totally made up the fact that I saw you kill someone? If no other facts exist that indicate that
you killed someone except my totally made-up story, should my totally made-up story be considered evidence that you killed someone? I would say
"No".

I'm not sure why you're trying to argue with me about it. I reported how the law works; I didn't write the law. Likewise, I've reported on the
definition of "evidence"; I didn't invent the definition.

Consider this reply to also be a reply to JimOberg, who, on page 4, posted a reply to me similar to yours.

I am beginning to think you are either lacking in the old grey matter somewhere or simply keeping this thread going by appearing that way.

There's U.F.O. sightings and descriptions of similar objects flying in the sky that date back to Ancient Egypt. If these things are naturally
occuring where's all the non-prosaic explanations in peer reviewed journals?

Of course there's some knowns that can be explained and this is why you have a classification system.

All of this evidence and we still haven't identified U.F.O.'s? That makes no sense. We used eyewitness accounts with meteors and comets. These things
were both seen as mysterious objects in the sky and they were identified. Why is there a lack of non prosaic explanations of U.F.O.'s in peer reviewed
journals?

Morgan, David L. Jr., "Evaluating Extreme Movements of UFO's and Postulating an Explanation of Effects of Forces on Their Maneuverability", ASME
Design Engineering conference, New York City, May 15-19, 1967, session 10.

Significantly, the UFO activity occasionally transcends mere surveillance and involves direct and unambiguous interference with our strategic
weapons systems. Numerous cases include reports of mysterious malfunctions of large numbers of nuclear missiles just as one or more UFOs hovered
nearby. (Declassified Soviet Ministry of Defense documents confirm that such incidents also occurred in the former USSR.)

To date, Hastings has interviewed more than 150 military veterans who were involved in various UFO-related incidents at U.S. missile sites, weapons
storage facilities, and nuclear bomb test ranges. The events described by these individuals leave little doubt that the U.S. nuclear weapons program
is an ongoing source of interest to someone possessing vastly superior technology.

If U.F.O.'s have a natural explanation why are they not identified after all of these years? Why haven't science explained them like they did with
comets or meteorites?

The fact is, many U.F.O.'s are controlled by intelligence. This is self evident because of the way they move and can escape detection.

Some will say, well these U.F.O.'s can be secret Government technology. The fact is, the Government is limited to the technology they can have by
things like Moore's Law. You can have all the money in the world and you can have great ideas that can be executed but if you don't have the
technology there's nothing you can do to get it.

This is why we're infants in space exploration. We have ideas on things like terraforming planets but we can't execute these ideas because we simply
don't have the technology. So unless an advanced civilization has giving the Government certain technologies, they're limited by Moore's Law as to the
technology they can have.

Moore's Law Keeps Going, Defying Expectations

Personal computers, cellphones, self-driving cars—Gordon Moore predicted the invention of all these technologies half a century ago in a 1965
article for Electronics magazine. The enabling force behind those inventions would be computing power, and Moore laid out how he thought computing
power would evolve over the coming decade. Last week the tech world celebrated his prediction here because it has held true with uncanny
accuracy—for the past 50 years.

It is now called Moore’s law, although Moore (who co-founded the chip maker Intel) doesn’t much like the name. “For the first 20 years I
couldn’t utter the term Moore’s law. It was embarrassing,” the 86-year-old visionary said in an interview with New York Times columnist Thomas
Friedman at the gala event, held at Exploratorium science museum. “Finally, I got accustomed to it where now I could say it with a straight face.”
He and Friedman chatted in front of a rapt audience, with Moore cracking jokes the whole time and doling out advice, like how once you’ve made one
successful prediction, you should avoid making another. In the background Intel’s latest gadgets whirred quietly: collision-avoidance drones,
dancing spider robots, a braille printer—technologies all made possible via advances in processing power anticipated by Moore’s law.

I have always found the best way to not end up being deceived, is to investigate and research everything anyone says, with a special emphasis on
anything any military spokesperson, same for anyone representing or claiming to represent NASA, CIA/NSA/NRO, etc.

All of the above have been caught after the fact in lying and deceiving the public about pretty much everything, especially the UFO subject. I am sure
you have watched many of the common UFO documentaries and noticed they most of the time have some "skeptic" to offer counterpoints to every claim any
eyewitnesses say they saw and experienced, except those skeptics never investigate witness claims, they only investigate their own alternatives, and
the feasibility of those alternatives, so they can claim as fact that that is what actually happened.

One of those was a guy who claimed the Rendlesham landing marks were rabbit diggings, as if those people who were there would not have been able to
determine that themselves, and that those entrusted to manage security and logistics for nuclear weapons would make such mis-identifications, and the
list of these are endless where skeptics step in and redefine the facts to better follow their own disbelief in ET visitation happening on Earth,
never mind if it can't be proven, only that this narrative is showing a pattern of debunking, rather than unbiased examination.

Also a specific and strengthened focus on the prosaic is always a good thing, but when it is unbalanced with ridicule or discrediting to strengthen
it's claims, just means it is more of an agenda versus balanced investigation. And we see a lot of that.

Since some witnesses I know personally have seen things up close and personal, and I have seen them as well, and knowing something not common to
normal earthly explanations is taking place, has made me more sensitive to the patterns showing an effort to explain away everything that happens, and
plenty of documents released, including public, and at one time "not public" versions of the same reports show that certain blue book operatives knew
the witnesses in some cases saw something very real and unearthly, but because of the current military enforced protocols, could not agree with those
witnesses and were under orders to discredit them.

All the better reasons to never accept any testimony from either side without first researching as much as possible first, to avoid being deceived.

I have always found the best way to not end up being deceived, is to investigate and research everything anyone says, with a special emphasis on
anything any military spokesperson, same for anyone representing or claiming to represent NASA, CIA/NSA/NRO, etc.

All of the above have been caught after the fact in lying and deceiving the public about pretty much everything, especially the UFO subject. I am sure
you have watched many of the common UFO documentaries and noticed they most of the time have some "skeptic" to offer counterpoints to every claim any
eyewitnesses say they saw and experienced, except those skeptics never investigate witness claims, they only investigate their own alternatives, and
the feasibility of those alternatives, so they can claim as fact that that is what actually happened.

That's a very good point. I've seen no discussions with witnesses being harassed by a skeptic. Maybe the "Fire in the Sky" guy failing the lie
detector test on that crappy game show. (I don't think that's proof he was lying)

We can be 100% sure that there is a cover up by TPTB, I don't think that can really be disputed.
The motivations for the cover up is what I question.

Do we think THEY have aliens because THEY want us to think that. Or do they really have them and can't keep a secret.

I've got no idea, my opinions on this vary depending on the day. I just don't think there is a conclusive answer available to us at this stage.

""Recognise that many people on this forum are here to attack claims from people such as yourself either because they are paid to or because they are
religious and their religion does not permit them to believe in aliens and UFOs."

Is there any reliable testimony that this claim is true?

Surely common sense must tell you that. How many are they i dont know and nor I did say how many either.

I did not sate that some anti UFO comments come from people who just dont believe in them, simply because i really did not think it was necessary to
do so but sadly, all to often on this forum it seems that I need to.

Recognise that many people on this forum are here to attack claims from people such as yourself either because they are paid to or because they
are religious and their religion does not permit them to believe in aliens and UFOs. The reason they are not permitted to believe in UFOs and aliens
is because god made us in his own image remember and it just would not do for being that are streets ahead of us in technology to look different to us
humans. Therefore they cant exist can they.

What about the people who just don't like sloppy thinking? It's interesting you phrase the situation in terms of religion. Religion is founded on
belief; faith in the truth of something without evidence. Believing that UFOs and alien life are in some way connected is an article of faith for
some. There is no rational reason to connect the two.

People see things in the sky they cannot immediately identify. These are called "Unidentified Flying Objects," or UFOs for short. These experiences
are very real, hence, UFOs, as a phenomenon, are real.

Our understanding of the nature of the physical universe is such that we can say with near certainty that life exists on other planets.

Automatically assuming that anything seen in the sky must necessarily be connected with life on other planets is illogical. We know so little about
the human mind, for example, that it would be foolish to exclude the possibility that the causes of the phenomenon are not material in
nature.

Thanks, I agree 100% .........apart from "Automatically assuming that anything seen in the sky must necessarily be connected with life on other
planets is illogical."

Don't know why people choose to be aggressive in the way you have. I can only conclude they are by nature either violent people and they are trying to
bolster their argument with force, or, they need to improve their communication skills.

If you want to influence people, its first necessary to engage and then influence. Making the sorts of comments referenced above, only turns people
away from you. Your job is try to turn people towards you by engaging and then influencing them in a way that is free of emotion, aggressiveness or
anger.

Don't know why people choose to be aggressive in the way you have. I can only conclude they are by nature either violent people and they are
trying to bolster their argument with force, or, they need to improve their communication skills.

It was a response to this statement:

Recognise that many people on this forum are here to attack claims from people such as yourself either because they are paid to or because they
are religious and their religion does not permit them to believe in aliens and UFOs. The reason they are not permitted to believe in UFOs and aliens
is because god made us in his own image remember and it just would not do for being that are streets ahead of us in technology to look different to us
humans. Therefore they cant exist can they.

One day the various religions will go into a huddle and redefine some clause in the bible to make it OK to beleive in aliens that is some distance
away yet.

All of this evidence and we still haven't identified U.F.O.'s? That makes no sense. We used eyewitness accounts with meteors and comets. These things
were both seen as mysterious objects in the sky and they were identified. Why is there a lack of non prosaic explanations of U.F.O.'s in peer reviewed
journals?

The cold truth is there isn't enough hard evidence to identify the arguable residue of reports known as unknowns or unidentified.

The trace evidence cases are inconclusive at best. Vallee cites a couple that are quite
mind-boggling and that's all they do - puzzle us. We've seen the effects on plant-life and scorched
leaves nearby 'landing cases' and all that can said there is, "Yes indeed, they are scorched leaves." You'll probably know about the odd
fragments of metals? So far none of them have been conclusively proven to have been
manufactured off-planet. A very confident person might bring in the 'implants' of Strieber or
Roger Leir and, even then, what can be said? Leir's background was certainly dodgy and Strieber's recent history leaves question marks about his
judgement. Evidence from unidentified labs being cited by disreputable podiatrists isn't enough.

Multiple witness reports are intriguing; certainly enough to have sustained my own
interest for many years so far - ebb and flow. Unfortunately, they aren't enough to become *conclusive* evidence of anything. Sure, I probably share
your conviction that *something* interesting has been occurring for decades. Nevertheless, I can count myself as someone who's read most of the
literature and listened to hours and hours of witness reports. Despite all that attention to all sides of the subject, I can't state with certainty
that what people are reporting is 'extraterrestrial.'

Even Vallee and J Allen Hynek eventually came to doubt the ETH even though they acknowledged the 'observer evidence' which was reported directly to
them. It doesn't have to be 'blindly rejected' to fall short of conviction.

The best explanation for U.F.O.'s that we classify as unknowns is extraterrestrials. The only reason these U.F.O.'s remain unidentified is because
some blindly reject the best explanation.

It's not the 'best explanation' until it covers all the outliers and 'high strangeness' cases. It can't be a 'best' explanation without us knowing the
extent of its espionage value either. We can't slice out the reports that were black tech sightings and we've no idea which reports were falsified to
lend deniability to black ops. Do you know what I mean there?

Let's say one of the better reports accurately described a disc-shaped object moving in ways we can't even do today? It's arguably not going to be
*ours.* That makes sense, right? We don't have silent aircraft and we don't make discs that zip around at huge speeds. Ergo it ain't ours. That
inference still falls short of it being from another planet. We wouldn't know if the object was a material one. We wouldn't know if we were having a
collective hallucination triggered by something unknown. We couldn't know whether the object was terrestrial or not. Groups of people have reported
seeing sea monsters and the Virgin Mary. How can we say there's a difference between those reports and the ones featuring objects?

Further afield, the awesome diversity in reported creatures should also make us pause. Why do South Americans see different 'aliens' to those in North
America? It speaks of culture in play and the role of human consciousness. Why would a menagerie of aliens travel in a variety of different vessels
and then spend most of 1954 within the borders of France? Did they have a political map of
Earth and preferred the French ambience? These are questions that aren't answered by the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis. They don't rule it out either,
but I hope you can appreciate the broader point in this post.

Groups of people have reported seeing sea monsters and the Virgin Mary. How can we say there's a difference between those reports and the ones
featuring objects?

This is a common fallacy. You can't lump these things together as if there the same. It's a debate tactic that's used when you can't debate the
evidence. The accumulation of evidence in this area is overwhelming. Descriptions of these objects in the sky date back to Ancient Egypt.

This page offers a list of 100+ articles, papers and monographs about UFOs / UAPs published in professional journals and specialty publications.
Two polls of professional & amateur astronomers respectively, on whether they see UFOs or not. Finally 60+ PhD dissertations and academic publications
about UFOs. Very little peer-reviewed literature has been published in which academics have proposed, studied or supported non-prosaic explanations
for UFOs.

You have U.F.O.'s avoiding planes, dropping off of radar and malfunctioning nuke sites. Why can't we identify them when we have all of this evidence
and all of this modern technology?

Significantly, the UFO activity occasionally transcends mere surveillance and involves direct and unambiguous interference with our strategic
weapons systems. Numerous cases include reports of mysterious malfunctions of large numbers of nuclear missiles just as one or more UFOs hovered
nearby. (Declassified Soviet Ministry of Defense documents confirm that such incidents also occurred in the former USSR.)

To date, Hastings has interviewed more than 150 military veterans who were involved in various UFO-related incidents at U.S. missile sites, weapons
storage facilities, and nuclear bomb test ranges. The events described by these individuals leave little doubt that the U.S. nuclear weapons program
is an ongoing source of interest to someone possessing vastly superior technology.

Like I said, the best explanation for U.F.O.'s are extraterrestrial visitation. When you accept the best explanation for U.F.O.'s then most of these
sightings are easily explained.

Why wouldn't extraterrestrials send probes to Earth as well? I have had 3 sightings and two of them looked like probes. One was flying right in front
of me against the wind that was almost knocking me down. It was very windy yet this white orb passed right in front of me against the wind. Slowed
down then sped back up.

We will do the same thing in 50-100 years. We will equip probes with A.I. and we will pin point the best candidates where life may exist like we do
know. This is why we will go to places like Titan and Europa first.

We're just starting out and information is accumulating fast.

An exoplanet (BrE /ˈek.səʊˌplæn.ɪt/ AmE /ˌek.soʊˈplæn.ɪt/)[3] or extrasolar planet is a planet that orbits a star other than the Sun.
Starting in 1988, and as of 1 October 2016, there have been 3,532 exoplanets in 2,649 planetary systems and 595 multiple planetary systems
confirmed.[4]

In November 2013, astronomers reported, based on Kepler space mission data, that there could be as many as 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting
in the habitable zones of Sun-like stars and red dwarfs in the Milky Way,[5][6] 11 billion of which may be orbiting Sun-like stars.[7]

A new study out says there's 10 to 20 times more galaxies in the universe.

The Universe Contains 10 to 20 Times More Galaxies Than We Thought

A new study suggests there are at least two trillion galaxies in the universe, and 90 percent are hidden from view.

The sheer difference in the number of galaxies has far-reaching implications as well. Probabilistic equations that estimate the number of hypothetical
alien civilizations, such as the Drake Equation, will need to be modified to account for the dramatic increase in the number of estimated galaxies out
there—which makes it even more astronomically unlikely that we are alone among intelligent species.

Again, with the accumulation of U.F.O. evidence and the fact that the existence of extraterrestrials is becoming accepted by everyone from Hawking to
Kaku because the position that we're alone in the universe based on this growing evidence should get laughed at, supports that the best explanation
for U.F.O.'s is extraterrestrial visitation.

They're accepted as evidence, especially when they corroborate or reinforce other evidence as well. Evidence of a phenomenon or observation isn't
proof of a given hypothesis about said phenomenon or observation, though. That's the problem.

The conundrum UFOs find themselves in is that after decades or rigorous study, most objective investigators seem forced to conclude that 1) when
misidentification and other mundane explanations are thoroughly ruled out, in a small number of cases something real - however rare - exists at the
center of the phenomenon, 2) various governments, militaries, and intelligence agencies throughout the world have had a high level of serious interest
in said phenomenon, which appears to be ongoing to varying degrees, 3) at certain points those bodies have actively sought to mislead the public about
it - whether because they know more about it than they appear to, or because they're practically as in the dark as we are and don't want control of
that narrative to be out of their hands for whatever reason, and 4) no one knows for certain what the reality and source of the phenomenon is. Or if
they do, they aren't saying or providing proof thereof.

Hypotheses range from ETs, to as yet unidentified natural phenomena or psychological phenomena, to all manner of other best guesses... but no one
knows, and there's no definitive proof of one hypothesis over the others. Beyond that, we're not talking about the assessment of evidence anymore, but
about beliefs. Which is fine. We all have our beliefs. But that's beyond the purview of objective observations and their implications IMHO.

When you have multiple accounts saying the same or similar things and we can classify these accounts into knowns, unknowns and insufficient
information than that's very powerful stuff. We do this all the time in science and there's algorithms today we use that are equipped with machine
learning to classify things.

Years ago, there was a local robbery and there was like 5 or 6 eyewitnesses to the robbery. The Police found the criminal based on the strength of
these eyewitnesses who had the same or similar accounts down to the way his shoes looked.

If eyewitness accounts are so unreliable how can a composite sketch lead to a criminals arrest?

Because they're not so 'unreliable' as some people wants us to believe, simple as that. And yes, when you have multiple accounts from people thata
NEVER met eachother, specially in times where there was NO internet, or cable TV, and anyway, people from all over the place started to 'remember'
that 'at some point' they lost track of a couple of hours of time, that some remember seeing 'a light' nearby, that later they will remember seeing
'little grey creatures' around when unable to move or resist, etc, etc, you have a problem, because basically NO alternative explanation can be drawn
to explain these eyewitness accounts.

Yes, abductions are reported like a plague and again, NO alternative explanation has fully explained the phenomena, not even close actually, and the
only thing remaining is what the witnesses are describing:

Extraterrestrial entities have been abducting human beings against their will for decades, subjecting them to extensive reproductive procedures
that involve the extraction of genetic material and the implantation of modified zygote into women uterus to later be extracted, that these fetuses
are actually human-alien hybrids that are part of the same workforce leading to the ultimate objective of making up a human-looking hybrid race with
infiltration purposes, and that the infiltration already begun a couple of decades ago.

And no, it's not 'lies', 'mistakes', 'crazy people', whatever. This is happening and it's the most important matter humanity is facing these
times. It could easily mean the end of the human race as we know it, because these infiltrated beings can control you neurologically and make
you do whatever they want and make you forget about it. Just imagine the possibilities of such scenario. Just watch the 'authorities' complete
curtain of silence and denial on the subject.

This is a common fallacy. You can't lump these things together as if there the same.

Of course they are , they're all paranormal and as such have no real evidence to support them , they are very much the same.

Again, with the accumulation of U.F.O. evidence and the fact that the existence of extraterrestrials is becoming accepted by everyone from Hawking to
Kaku because the position that we're alone in the universe based on this growing evidence should get laughed at, supports that the best explanation
for U.F.O.'s is extraterrestrial visitation.

There's a large gulf between believing that other intelligent life exists out there and believing that unidentified lights in the sky are them.

a reply to: neoholographic
I think people have been taught and conditioned through school's media etc,that the mere thought of flying saucers is quite crazy,so as a debunking
tool,they always use excuses to discount their testimony,and the conditioned sheeple tend to agree with them,even if you take a clear picture they
say"cgi',then complain about shaky ones,like most things, government let's it's people know as little as possible that is a fact

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.